webster & watson - How to write a LR - MISQ How To Write A Literature Review | Page 6

Webster & Watson/Guest Editorial

Tables and figures can be an effective means of communicating major findings and insights. Nonetheless,
tables cannot be merely lists of articles. They need to add value by categorizing articles based on a
scheme that helps to define the topic area, such as types of variables examined, level of analysis, gaps
in the literature, or other important theoretical issues.
For instance, DeLone and McLean (1992) include a set of tables summarizing the literature on IS success
by level of analysis, type of study, and success measures. As another example, Bem (1995) describes a
review in which past research is categorized by whether the studies support one of three competing
models—by doing so, the authors are able to discover a recognizable pattern supporting one of the
models. Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) table of knowledge taxonomies makes it easy for the reader to quickly
determine the meaning of a particular knowledge type, which is especially useful in a long article. Finally,
the six figures and 13 tables in Te'eni’s (2001) review article help to communicate his message more
clearly.
A review succeeds when it helps other scholars to make sense of the accumulated knowledge on a topic.
We believe that sense-making is enhanced when a review is logically structured around the topic’s central
ideas and makes good use of tables and figures to convey economically the key findings and relationships.

Tone
A successful literature review constructively informs the reader about what has been learned. In contrast
to specific and critical reviews of individual papers, tell the reader what patterns you are seeing in the
literature. Do not fall into the trap of being overly critical, as Daft (1985, p. 198) argued when describing
why he rejected some journal submissions:
…another indicator of amateurism was an overly negative approach to the previous
literature.…Previous work is always vulnerable. Criticizing is easy, and of little value; it
is more important to explain how research builds upon previous findings rather than to
claim previous research is inadequate and incompetent.
Respect the work of those who labored to create the foundation for your current work by keeping in mind
that all research is flawed (McGrath 1982). Of course, you cannot cite others’ work blindly—sometimes
research is poorly designed and conducted, and you will need to make hard decisions about whether to
include this work in your review or to downplay its significance. Further, if a research stream has a
common “error” that must be rectified in future research, you will need to point this out in order to move the
field forward. In general, though, be fault tolerant. Recognize that knowledge is accumulated slowly in a
piecemeal fashion and that we all make compromises in our research, even when